Ketroser v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

Background

Deidre Kellogg Ketroser sued 7-Eleven, Inc. and Southland Corporation over accessibility barriers at a 7-Eleven store in San Ramon, California. Ketroser has multiple sclerosis and sometimes uses a walker or cane. She visited the store with her late husband, David B. Ketroser, in December 2018 and February 2019. She claimed that displays narrowed the store’s interior aisles and that the exterior door required too much force to open.

The original plaintiff was David B. Ketroser, who died in November 2019. The court allowed Deidre Kellogg Ketroser to substitute for him on certain state-law damages claims, but those damages claims were later voluntarily dismissed. After an earlier summary-judgment ruling, the claims remaining for trial were Ketroser’s claims for injunctive relief under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Aisle claim

Ketroser testified that a bread display and displays along a glass wall made the aisles difficult to navigate during her February 2019 visit. The court found this testimony insufficient to establish that the aisles were narrower than the applicable accessibility standards required. She did not try to pass the displays, provide measurements, or give enough detail to establish the width of the aisle.

Later inspections did not establish the condition of the aisles during Ketroser’s 2019 visit. Her expert found the aisles compliant during a July 2020 inspection. During an October 2021 inspection, the expert found one portion of an aisle that was 32.25 inches wide for 26 inches, but the obstruction was a gift-card stand rather than the displays Ketroser described. The court found no evidence showing that the later obstruction was similar to the displays present during her visit.

The court also rejected Ketroser’s argument that her expert’s later inspection independently supported her claim. It found no evidence that Ketroser intended to visit the store when that inspection occurred or that she had reliable notice of the later condition.

Door claim

Ketroser claimed that the exterior door required more than five pounds of force to operate, exceeding the applicable California Building Code limit. She described the door as very heavy and said someone helped her, but no one measured the door’s pressure during or shortly after her February 2019 visit.

The experts measured the door at different times and obtained different results: approximately 10 pounds in July 2020, 7.5 and 8 pounds in October 2021, and 4.8 and 4.9 pounds in February 2022. The court found that door pressure can change because of wind, temperature, building systems, and testing technique. It therefore found that the later measurements did not prove the door exceeded five pounds during Ketroser’s visit. The court likewise rejected reliance on the expert’s later measurements as an independent basis for the claim.

Standing to seek an injunction

The court separately found that Ketroser lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because she did not establish a sufficient likelihood that she would return to the store. Ketroser said she would like to return and that the store was convenient, but the court characterized this as a generalized wish rather than a concrete plan.

The court considered Ketroser’s distance from the store, her past reasons for visiting the San Ramon area, the death of her husband, the limited evidence of future visits with family or an author, her concerns about traveling during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the fact that she had visited the store only three times. It also noted that she had not shown that the store offered products unavailable elsewhere or that she was likely to return specifically to this store.

Disposition

The court found that Ketroser failed to prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that she had not shown that her version of events was more likely than not. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of 7-Eleven. The opinion therefore includes both merits findings rejecting the alleged aisle and door barriers and a threshold ruling that Ketroser had not established standing for injunctive relief.